FTC

Danny Sullivan of Advertising Age spotllights another systematic Google privacy invasion in his great new article: "Google's latest power grab."

Check this out:

• "Millions have installed the Google Toolbar, which includes a PageRank meter that rates sites' popularity on a scale of zero to 10. To work, that meter has to report to Google which page is being viewed. That means Google sees every site some toolbar users are visiting."

  "Until last week, the meter was switched off by default. Now Google pushes a version with the meter enabled and encourages surfers who already have the toolbar to flip the switch. The enticement? Doing so allows those surfers to view a log of all their web visits. In addition, that web history will influence how pages rank in the search results they see."
  

One more way Google spies on you, but of course it's only for your own good!

Google is amassing an amazing profiling database on people that would be extremely frightening if it fell into the hands of bad people: criminals, stalkers, predators, con artists etc.

• This private vault of information better be guarded better than Fort Knox.
• If it isn't, they will have a whole lot of explaining to do.
   

The ItsOurNet coalition is relaunching under a new name the "Open Internet Coalition" in May according to Todays' National Journal's Tech Daily .

• The article intimates that the new incarnation of the online giant coalition may not include Microsoft.
• Since ItsOurNet formed last year Google was much more radical and hyper-regulatory than Microsoft was comfortable with.
• After coming out swinging the antitrust bat when Google outbid Microsoft, it will be very surprising if Microsoft rejoins Google's gang after parting ways with ItsOurNet last fall.

I must say I am sad to see the ItsOurNet name fall by the wayside, it was a glorious pinata of a concept.

• I needled ItsOurNet when they announced their name that it was a tad bit greedy for the online giants to claim in their name that they "owned" the Internet.
• I suggested it would have been a little wiser and fit with their "democratic" message to have called it "ItsEveryonesNet" or "ItsEverybodysNet".
• But no, they apparently are calling it the "Open Net coalition" or "OpenNetCoalition.com."
• Not bad but for grins, quickly checkout an Internet artifact before they pull it down: opennetcoalition.org.

It also will be interesting to see if they have retooled the substance of their message and if they will abandon Moveon.org and the Dorgan-Snowe bill to try and appear more reasonable and practical.

Reading between the lines of the article it seems Moveon is "on" the defensive so to speak.

lastly it will be interesting to see if:

The New York Times article today on Google highlights another reason all Americans should be worried about Google's anti-competitive arbitrage of U.S. privacy laws and consumer expectations.

• "Google has been working with officials in Arizona, California, Utah and Virginia to make some of that information more broadly available." 
• That "information'  is the data on state websites; and is part of Google's mission "to make all the world's information accessible and useful." 
• "But the increased exposure of government records through web searches is likely to raise privacy concerns."
• "It will be easier to collect disparate facts about a person, which bound together and aggregated, can present troubling problems..." 

I just heard someone joke:

I first wanted to share some very interesting quotes that are relevant to the GoogleDoubleclick merger and privacy in general -- before I delve into the issue of "intimacy theft" more specifically. 

In Comm Daily Thursday, a widely respected attorney in Washington, Christine Varney, who identified herself as a longtime attorney for DoubleClick said:

• "A light government hand can't protect privacy. There's absolutely no marketplace for privacy. People will sell their mother's life history for 10 cents off a big Mac."

This is the marketplace context that the government will review the Google-DoubleClick merger.

Declan McCullagh of CNET has a very insightful piece called: "Missing : Politicians who take a clear stand on tech" where he spotlights that net neutrality is not on either the Democrat or Republican tech policy agendas.

• It is not at all surprising that the Congressional Republican agenda does not have Net neutrality on its agenda, since Republicans almost universally see net neutrality for what it is: an unnecessary and dangerous back door attempt to regulate the Internet for the first time.
• However, it is suprising and downright embarassing that Moveon.org and Google, eBay, Amazon, Yahoo, and IAC could not manage to get net neutrality on the Congressional Democratic tech policy agenda.
  

Google's net neutrality hypocrisy only grows.

• The International Tribune reports that Google has entered an Internet advertising revenue sharing arrangement with broadband ISP China Telecom.

It will be fun to hear Google's explanatory gymnastics on this one! 

• How can Google say with a straight face that is for net neutrality here in the U.S. when it cuts non-neutral broadband ISP arrangements with China Telecom on top of aiding and abetting the Chinese Government in censoring what the Chinese people can access from the Internet?
• Do as Google says...

I listened in to SaveTheInternet's conference call with reporters in celebration of their one year anniversary.

• It was an illuminating "window" into the nature and status of the current Net neutrality "movement."

Senator Dorgan (D-ND) author of the pending Dorgan-Snowe Bill was the keynote and star.  

• He framed net neutrality as  "Internet freedom" and "open architecture" and breathlessly stated that "the future of the Internet is at stake." 
• He announced that he was seeking a hearing on his legislation with the goal of moving it to the Senate floor implying he had the votes to pass it.
• He also anticipated and asked himself the core question of "why is the legislation needed?"
• His only answer was to read the December 2005 Business Week quote by then SBC Chairman Ed Whitacre about how it was "nuts" for Google to use its pipes for free.
• I was stunned that he as the keynote and the name author of the legislation that he could not come up with a more recent or better piece of "evidence" or at least come up with a real world example of a problem or instance he is concerned about.
• This is obviously all politics; they have no substance or they would present it.

Craig Newmark was second to speak and he asserted everyone he knew was for NN. (I guess we should give up now.)

I always knew Moveon.org was a powerful political force, but I just learned how powerful -- Moveon.org was the second largest Political Action Committee (PAC) in the US in 2006, according to the Washington Post "In The Loop" column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum.

• Moveon.org, with its 3 million person email list, was the second-largest PAC with $27.7 million, after Emily's List at $34.1 million. Political MoneyLine was the cited source. 

Moveon.org's political clout combined with its zealousness for promoting net neturality regulation and the front-loaded 2008 political process mean net neutrality will likely remain on the "techcom" political agenda as a key issue for the foreseeable future -- despite getting repudiated by the House, Senate, Supreme Court, FCC, FTC, NTIA, Maryland, Michigan to only name the most prominent forums that rejected regulating the Internet.

Google just announced a new so called "service" for you: "Web History."

• https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?hl=en&continue=http://www.google.com/history&nui=1&service=hist

You know what gives me the creeps about this?

•  Google is trying to act like this computerized "intimacy theft," the systematic spying and mass archiving of the intimate private search lives of Americans for the benefit of the highest bidder -- is for the average American's benefit. 
• Please don't insult our intelligence.
• Reportedly 9 of 10 Google users think their search histories are private information.
• Uh oh.
• These unsuspecting and trusting Americans are being treated as suckers by Google.

How do we know Google does not sell or give access to this extremely intimate info to the government or the highest bidder?

• Just like 9 of 10 Americans don't know their intimate privacy is being stolen, I'll posit that 9 of 10 Google users will never avail themselves of this so called "service."

You know what gives me the most creeps about Google's Web History service?

The WSJ reported DoubleClick Inc. "Defends its deal with Google" by "pledging that the information it collects about, and for, its graphical-advertising customers won't be shared with Google after the acquisition later this year."

Let's be real here. They really do think everyone is stupid.

• First, Doubleclick is being bought by Google so what Doubleclick says now doesn't matter after the transaction closes.
• To be taken seriously this pledge needs to made by Google in writing and enforceable as part of the transaction contractually or by court decree.
• It is unlikely that Google will agree to this restriction because Google knows that it can simply change the DoubleClick policy and harmonize it with Google's very loose privacy policy on a going forward basis.
• This public pledge is also a swiss cheese committment.
• With weak privacy policies like Google's, it's about "sins of ommission" what they don't say or commit to, not "sins of commission" what they actually say in their byzantine privacy policy.   

Privacy issues are Google's achilles heel. Google is growing so fast and is so profitable largely because they are most aggressively arbitraging privacy law and american's privacy expectations. The FT said Google's brand is now number 1 in the world.